Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On Friday, June 22, 2012 02:04:02 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> This is nonsense. There are at least three buildfarm machines running
>> compilers that do not "pretend to be gcc" (at least, configure
>> recognizes them as not gcc) and are not MSVC either.
> Should there be no other trick - I think there is though - we could just
> specify -W2177 as an alternative parameter to test in the 'quiet static
> inline' test.
What is that, an MSVC switch? If so it's rather irrelevant to non-MSVC
compilers.
> I definitely do not want to bar any sensible compiler from compiling postgres
> but the keyword here is 'sensible'. If it requires some modest force/trickery
> to behave sensible, thats ok, but if we need to ship around huge unreadable
> crufty macros just to support them I don't find it ok.
So you propose to define any compiler that strictly implements C99 as
not sensible and not one that will be able to compile Postgres? I do
not think that's acceptable. I have no problem with producing better
code on gcc than elsewhere (as we already do), but being flat out broken
for compilers that don't match gcc's interpretation of "inline" is not
good enough.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
